Home Theater Speakers
Paradigm Signature Multi-channel Speaker Ensemble
|
Paradigm Signature Multi-channel Speaker Ensemble A Secrets Speaker Review |
|
| Written by Brian Florian | |||||
| Wednesday, 26 March 2008 | |||||
Page 3 of 3 Implementation Just a couple words on fitting these speakers into a setup.
Paradigm curiously elected to continue the elegant curves of the design on the speaker bottoms, such that when first taking them out of the box, they wobble like weebles. Granted, the ideal placement of the surrounds is on the wall (for which the requisite hardware is provided by the way), so for them it's not much of an issue, but for the front speakers, it may well be. If you elect to couple them with Paradigm's own special set of elegant stands, the speakers actually are fastened at their back with screws. Trouble is, that stand may not always be the ideal height, and the center channel is almost certainly destined for conventional placement such as on top of the TV itself or on a shelf directly above or below it.
To this end, Paradigm does provide for each speaker a set of rather large rubber half-spheres which must be very carefully and precisely placed on the bottoms per the supplied diagrams. Once in place, they are literally invisible, but be prepared to go through the motions, and if you are using conventional speakers stands, you must ensure that their top plate is large enough to catch all four rubber feet. We used to talk about speakers sounding “good”, “pleasing”, “warm”, and any number of other abstract adjective. If a speaker changes the sound from what it is in the recording, that is a distortion, even if subjectively we like that distortion. True performance, as exemplified here by Paradigm, is when the speakers don't sound like any thing at all. They are utterly passive, imparting nothing at all except the signal that is sent to them. This, although lacking in poetic delivery, is in fact the highest praise I can in good conscience give a loudspeaker. Critical stereo listening revealed not only how neutral and accurate these speakers are, but how perfectly homogeneous they are. It's one thing to design an excellent speaker, and it's quite another to mass-produce it and have every single one be within 0.5 dB of the next. "Image like the Dickens" seems an understatement. Subjectively good recordings yield pleasing, natural vocals and instruments. They have a remarkable amount of punch for their size as well. Most good speakers can play "loud", but not all can do it while maintaining a good transient response. This is a characteristic of loudspeakers which in someways is even more important than frequency response, but which is a little more elusive, not to mention most contemporary music recordings won't even challenge a speaker in this respect. Turning to recordings which actually exploit the medium's dynamic range, these speakers not only deliver in this respect, but do so in spades, even when run full range without a subwoofer! I honestly don't do a lot of two-channel listening anymore, in that I almost always put my CDs through Pro Logic II Music processing, and of course my near daily movie watching is a multi-channel experience. Here again I found myself internally saying, "Wow" at speakers for the first time in years. Yes, the C1 center is an identical sonic match to the S1s, and it stands out as an incredible anchor for the system as a whole. It is a natural product of multi-channel mixing that the center channel gets a very complex signal at times, and here the three-way configuration pays dividend. Yet it is the surrounds, somewhat unexpectedly, which I would like to give the most credit to. I talked about how properly designed dipoles have a smooth total power response. That is, even though you, the listener, are ideally in the null, the speaker should sound pretty much the same as its front direct radiating counterpart. In terms of in-room response, the ADP1s "looked" like fronts. Here is a fun exercise if you ever get the chance: use a pair of ADP1s as main L/R speakers. They will sound every bit as good as the S1s, are even able to image, but in a much less focused way. In other words I declare these ADP1s about as perfect a surround speaker as can be had. Back on the wall where they belong, they do two things: they produce the same full and natural sound as their front counterparts and do it with just enough spacial precision. They are able to image between themselves and the fronts, but, unlike monopoles-as-surrounds, not to a degree which undermines their expansive nature. They mimic with an uncanny likeness the very arrays which the media is produced on in the first place, as exemplified by the media itself: A scene where leaves are rustling in the background, being input to both surround channels, perhaps even a little out of phase, ends up sounding "all around" you (regardless of seating position), yet when a car comes "from rear-right to front-right" there is deadly precision in the sound's movement which one can easily "follow". Try any of the multi-channel mixes of Big Phat Band and you will hear instruments positioned between a surround and its corresponding front, yet simultaneously the more vague ambience in the track. It's as if the ADP1s know what to do and when to do it. Their only hitch is the price, which will strike some as high, but it is justified given the shear number of drivers enclosed. The only way in my opinion to get equal surround performance would be speaker arrays which are just as expensive and a nightmare to implement and set up. Conclusions There is no question that the Signature series speakers are slightly better than the Studio series, though admittedly it is not dramatically so. While speakers which make a visual statement are not new, what is unique here in my opinion is that these do so without compromising true speaker performance. With the exception of the most cavernous of spaces, I have no reservation about endorsing these for just about any system: they are small, they look great, they perform remarkably as a 5.1 whole, the S1s can be used on their own without a sub, and the surrounds are going to cause some people to give up long held biases. Bravo Paradigm! Comments (7)
![]() Magnetic grille covers
written by Kieran , March 28, 2008 Nice review. I wish I could afford these! They must have embedded some ferrous metal in where the magnets attach. Aluminum is non-magnetic. Or they could have embedded another magnet inside the aluminum casting. Are Receiver's Power Amp Sections Beefy Enough for These Speakers?
written by Crazyivan68 , April 02, 2008 Brian made reference to "honest" 100-watts per channel. A lot, if not most receivers, do not put out an "honest" 100-watts per channel. If these speakers are down 6dBs over his regular speakers then they require 4X as much power (3dBs equals a doubling of power & 10dBs equals 10X the power). Will these speakers be suitable with receivers such as Onkyo's TX-SR875 & TX-NR905, & Denon's AVR-3808CI & AVR-4308CI? Background for above query. I'm interested because I want to reduce my speakers' footprints in the front especially. Currently I have Mirage OM-9s for FL/FR & a Mirage OM-C2 for center (I don't like D'Appolito centers because of off-axis issues - I prefer phantom center, but use a center speaker because of people sitting off center) driven by an Onkyo TX-NR905. When I move to a flat panel it will be very difficult to integrate the OM-C2 properly because of its bi-polar nature. Question for Brian regarding dipole vs direct radiating surrounds
written by PedroLamy , April 02, 2008 Brian, My current setup requires the primary listening area (i.e. couch) to be against the back wall. I know that you're a big fan of dipoles. Would you recommend dipoles for such a setup or use direct radiating speakers situated directly above or to the sides of the couch? My concern is that there isn't enough room for the sound from one side of the dipoles to radiate off the rear wall if they are installed with the null side inline with the couch. I have seen any recommendations on how to incorporate dipoles into such a listening/sitting setup. Amp power
written by Brian , April 02, 2008 These new Signature speakers will "work" with any decent receiver, the question is: up to what playback level. That of course depends on the room and your own idea of how loud is "enough". I dug out some old Mirage literature and they quote those old OMs as "91dB...in room" which is unfortunately a somewhat ambiguous figure (who's room?). Paradigm in fact quotes both "in room" (97) and anechoic (94). That should at least give you a ~vague~ idea of how they would far on your 905 in comparison to your existing speakers. Alternate surround placement
written by Brian , April 02, 2008 While dipole surrounds are "ideally" placed to the immediate L/R of a seating area, they can do very well in other arrangements as situations dictate. Are you absolutely 100% glued to the back wall? In my experience the minimum distance from the back wall for the speakers themselves is 2 feet. If you moved your couch out just a tiny bit, enough so that your ear is about 2 feet from the back wall, the back of the couch might only be a foot from the wall, especially if its a "plush" one. I bet the sound from your fronts would be better if you nudged that couch forward even that much. If you are married to the wall, then you can still use dipoles ON that back wall, up high and a little to your left and right. They also do ok in the back corners at 45deg as long as they are high up (just so that you don't have a pole firing right at you). Correction
written by Brian , April 04, 2008 That should have been 87/84dB efficiency rating on the S1s, not 97/94. ...
written by Mark G , July 31, 2008 As regards a suitable receiver, I initially drove the S1, C1, ADP1's with the Onkyo TX-SR875 (with a Servo-15)and although it sounded good at lower volumes I found it to be somewhat "harsh" and fatigueing at higher dB's. The insertion of an Outlaw 7700 (200x7) really opened them up and took away the listening fatigue at higher volumes. As well, the soundstage really opened up with much more authority to the midrange and better bass extension resulting in a better sub integration (at least in my room). So, I concur that 100-200 watts of CLEAN power is required. Write comment
|
|||||


















